The question of whether Terri Schiavo's life should be sustained raises difficult end-of-life issues that are becoming more common as medicine and science advance.

As more people face those issues, many will call upon their faith to guide them. We turned to the five columnists who write for our Saturday Faith & Values to find out what the various faiths have to say about these difficult issues.

And while we found that faith can be a guide, religious people still struggle when the decision becomes personal.

Aziz Junejo

Q: What would you do if you were making the decision in Terri Schiavo's case?

A: The majority of Muslims in America believe her life should be saved, and perhaps doctors should reinsert the feeding tube. We must remember she is not dead, and that God and the U.S. Constitution give her the right to live.

Muslims generally believe a sick person should patiently endure the pain and pray to Allah that if he or she is patient, there will be a great reward and blessing for them in the eternal life.

Q: To what extent is this decision driven by what your faith says on end-of-life issues?

A: It is very clear in Islam that mercy killing is generally forbidden, because it empowers the physician to end the life of the patient via lethal injection, electric shock, a sharp weapon or any other way.

But it is interesting that recently some Muslim scholars of Islamic jurisprudence have allowed the suspension of passive measures such as medical treatment. Withholding medication from the patient is sometimes permissible and occasionally even recommended. Muslims rely on a scholar's knowledge of the subject in question, and can take or reject their recommendation.

Q: Would your decision differ if the Schiavo case turned not on the withholding of a feeding tube, but on withholding such "extraordinary measures" as a ventilator, dialysis and emergency resuscitation?

A. Personally my decision could differ. For example, in my own life I have already made this compassionate decision for my late father.

I remember when the doctors came out of the operating room almost 10 years ago and explained to me: "We have done everything we could for your father's heart, but now only life-support machines can sustain him, and not for very long."

His heart was permanently damaged and there were no realistic options, and I had to make the painful decision whether or when to shut the machines off.

Due to my father's foresight, we had discussed the desired choice a few years prior. With tears in my eyes, and sitting at his bedside, I gently held his hand as the doctors turned off the life-support machines. It suddenly became quiet as his hand started to lose warmth, and he began to look at peace. I will never forget that exact moment of the decision.

My only prayer is that Terri's case will inspire a dialogue for us to discuss this issue openly and convey our true wishes to our families, perhaps even in writing.

The Rev. Patricia L. Hunter

The Rev. Patricia L. Hunter is an associate in ministry at Mount Zion Baptist Church and an employee-benefits specialist for American Baptist Churches in the USA.

Q: What would you do if you were making the decision in Schiavo's case?

A: I support Michael Schiavo's decision to eliminate the feeding and hydration tube for his wife. If I were making the decision, my decision would be based on the quality of life that Terri is experiencing and her medical desires that were shared with her husband, her legal guardian.

I would also consider the medical providers' opinions, who have all said the chance of her recovery is zero.

I think Michael Schiavo is to be admired for his steadfast commitment to follow through on his wife's desires in the midst of extensive public discourse and political pressure.

Q: To what extent is this decision driven by what your faith says on end-of-life issues?

A: My faith tells me there is sanctity of life and dignity in death and that God is present at both occasions. My faith informs me that life on earth is only one dimension of life and that eternal life awaits those who are believers in Jesus Christ. Allowing Terri's body to take its natural journey toward death opens the door for her to experience eternal life.

Q: Would your decision differ if the case turned not on the withholding of a feeding tube, but on withholding such "extraordinary measures" as a ventilator, dialysis and emergency resuscitation?

A: No. My father had to make the decision to take my mother off a ventilator when she was pronounced brain dead. My sisters and I agreed with his decision. My mother would not have wanted to be kept in a vegetative condition just because a machine could pump oxygen into her system and a tube could give her nourishment and water.

I believe that we are required by our faith to offer ordinary life-saving measures to those who are sick. Extraordinary measures are not required. In my opinion, the feeding and hydration tube for 15 years [for Terri Schiavo] was an extraordinary measure, not required by mandates of faith.

Pastor Mark Driscoll is founder of the nondenominational Mars Hill Church in Ballard.

Pastor Mark Driscoll

Q: What would you do if you were making the decision in Schiavo's case, and to what extent is this decision driven by what your faith says on end-of-life issues?

A: First, Terri was created by God with inherent worth and could live except for her inability to swallow food and water. Second, to me Terri's feeding tube is no more of an extraordinary life-saving measure than a spoon held by a caregiver providing food and water to someone who is disabled or elderly. Third, her parents want to care for her and I believe Terri's wishes are unknown. Fourth, the Bible forbids taking an innocent human life, and Terri has committed no crime deserving a torturous death by dehydration. Fifth, Terri's husband should not be her legal guardian because they have not lived together since 1990, and he is in effect married to his girlfriend, with whom he has two children and has lived since 1995.

Therefore, I would preserve Terri's life so long as extraordinary measures were not required to sustain it.

Q: Would your decision differ if the case turned not on the withholding of a feeding tube, but on withholding such "extraordinary measures" as a ventilator, dialysis and emergency resuscitation?

A: There is a difference between ordinary measures, like those being used on Terri, and extraordinary measures. If extraordinary measures were being used to sustain her life, I would be more likely to not use them and allow God to take her life at his appointed time.

The Rev. Patrick J. Howell is a Jesuit priest and dean of Seattle University's School of Theology and Ministry.

The Rev. Patrick J. Howell

Q: What would you do if you were making the decision in Schiavo's case, and to what extent is this decision driven by what your faith says on end-of-life issues?

A: The Roman Catholic Church has a consistent 400-year-old tradition that says nobody is obliged to undergo extraordinary means to preserve life.

This is Holy Week, when the Christian tradition is saying, "We understand that life is not an absolute good and death is not an absolute defeat." The whole story of Easter is about the triumph of ultimate life over transitory death. Catholics have never believed that biological life is an end in and of itself. It is a gift of God, and we are ultimately destined to return to God.

As far back as 1950, Gerald Kelly, the leading Catholic moral theologian at the time, wrote, "I'm often asked whether you have to use IV feeding to sustain somebody who is in a terminal coma." And he said, "Not only do I believe there is no obligation to do it, I believe that imposing those treatments on that class of patients is wrong. There is no benefit to the patient, there is great expense to the community, and there is enormous tension on the family."

I have been blessed in my own family with a great deal of practical realism. My parents both made it very clear 30 years ago that they did not want extraordinary means or an artificial prolonging of life through nutritional tubes. My mother, now 89, has a degenerative heart condition and has made it very clear through a living will she does not want emergency resuscitation or any other extraordinary measures should her heart fail.

The situation with Terri Schiavo is truly tragic. I hope her family and especially her parents will have the support and care they need to grieve her loss.

Rabbi Mark S. Glickman leads Congregation Kol Shalom on Bainbridge Island.

Rabbi Mark S. Glickman

Q: What would you do if you were making the decision in Schiavo's case, and to what extent is this decision driven by what your faith says on end-of-life issues?

A: When confronted with difficult questions such as the fate of Terri Schiavo, I turn to the wisdom of Judaism for guidance. Regrettably, however, the Jewish tradition, like the rest of society, seems divided over this question, too.

On the one hand, Judaism affirms the sanctity of human life and demands that we do whatever we can to preserve it.

But Judaism also allows for medical treatments to be withheld from dying patients so as to avoid prolonging their suffering, even if doing so would hasten the end of that person's life.

Unfortunately, the principles that would allow a physician to hasten a patient's death don't really apply to Terri Schiavo. Until recently, Ms. Schiavo was not dying; with continued nutrition and hydration, she could live for many years. Also, medicines and other high-tech interventions weren't sustaining Ms. Schiavo's life during recent years, food was. Though one might argue that a feeding tube — inserted by a medical professional and providing Ms. Schiavo laboratory-developed nutritional fluids — is indeed "medicine," I find that argument unpersuasive.

Let's face it, removing that tube means starving Ms. Schiavo to death.

Of course, much of the debate hinges on Ms. Schiavo's wishes. Evidently, she said that were she ever in a vegetative state, she would not want her life prolonged. With utmost respect to Ms. Schiavo, I find this argument unpersuasive, too. None but fanatical religions affirm suicide as a moral or sacred choice, and it is inappropriate for anyone to request that we simply stop feeding them.

What has helped me most in my thinking about this issue has been to pretend that the person at the center of this controversy wasn't Terri Schiavo, but one of my parents. Though they are healthy now — thank God — someday they may become ill and infirm, so sick that my brothers and I would decide that heroic efforts at medical intervention could only prolong their pain and delay their imminent deaths.

In that case, it is clear what I would do. I would make sure that their basic needs were provided (even if that meant tube-feeding), I would sit at their sides and give them what comfort I could and I would let God decide when their lives should end.

Such is the response of Judaism as I understand it, and I believe that Terri Schiavo deserves nothing less.